Rayz2016

About

Banned
Username
Rayz2016
Joined
Visits
457
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
18,421
Badges
2
Posts
6,957

Reactions

15KLike531Informative

  • Apple to launch branded over-ear headphones as soon as this year

    Rayz2016Rayz2016
    What we know:

    They will be gorgeous. 

    They will sound terrific. 

    There will be a cool Jony Ive video. 

    They will cost an arm and a leg. 

    They will miss the Christmas buying period. 

    Audiophiles will claim their $800 Clymedia KnockingFlange XRW646774366SD headsets sound much better. 

    Folk will post lots of bizarre “what if” disaster scenarios: What if I’m walking along and someone shouts “Hey you”. When I look round, someone hits me in the face with a frozen kipper and runs off with my iMuffs. 

    A month after they’re released, Samsung will drop viral marketing shots of an almost identical product, except they will hint that the sound will be ten times better and they will be the first headphones featuring a unique “over the groin” design. 


    tmaybrian greenmmatzmike1fruitstandninjadacharracerhomie3eideardNotsofastSoli

  • Epic Games CEO slams Apple 'government spyware'

    Rayz2016Rayz2016
    ihatescreennames said:
    I am interested to know what the difference is between Apple doing this and Google doing this. Google has been scanning photos for CSAM for years and I've never seen an uproar over it. Is there something I'm missing that makes it terrible on Apple's part and OK on Google's part?

    For reference, here's an article from 2016 about a man being arrested on child porn charges after authorities received a tip from Google that he had uploaded CSAM to his Gmail account.

    https://www.denverpost.com/2016/06/22/jonbenet-ramsey-child-porn-boulder-gary-oliva/


    Google found the child porn by scanning the file on their servers. This is nothing new; Microsoft, Apple and Google have been doing this for quite some time.

    The problem is that this will not find porn if the files are encrypted before they are sent to the server.

    So Apple will get around this by installing a spy program that will scan photos, hash them, compare with the database of child porn image hashes they have download to your phone and report on them before they are sent to iCloud.

    The problem is that Apple has already admitted that the system is open to abuse.  Since the images are hashed, then Apple doesn't know what images are being searched for. This means that any government can inject any image into the database Apple is picking up. In some countries, this won't be child porn; it'll be images of wanted dissidents, government protestors, subversive poetry. 

    Apple has basically told the world that they're happy to build them a surveillance network for any country that asks them to.

    That's the problem.
    mike54sriceanantksundarambaconstangFileMakerFeller

  • iOS Wi-Fi exploit enables zero-click remote iPhone access without user knowledge

    Rayz2016Rayz2016
    netrox said:
    Lame crackers having nothing else to do.

    But thanks. 
    Really? Did you read the article. It’s his actual job. 

    He worked on this for six months and came up with an exploit that he shared with Apple instead of going public. He then said that he’ll donate the bounty to charity. 

    In what way is he ‘lame’?

    Apple, meanwhile, left a large poorly-implemented, untested attack surface in millions of phones. Any lameness here belongs with Apple. 
    mr. hPetrolDaveequality72521tenthousandthingsuraharamike1scartartMplsPtokyojimuwilliamlondon

  • Apple details user privacy, security features built into its CSAM scanning system

    Rayz2016Rayz2016
    chadbag said:
    The problem is the hubris of Apple and Tim Cook and his EVP and other staff.   They are so convinced that all their "social" wokeness and initiatives are 100% correct and a mission from god (not God).  They are not listening.  They don't care.  They think they are right and just need to convince you of that.
    Yes, the hubris of Apple...and every other company that was already doing this. Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Dropbox, Snapchat, ... Oh look: "To date, over 1,400 companies are registered to make reports to NCMEC’s CyberTipline and, in addition to making reports, these companies also receive notices from NCMEC about suspected CSAM on their servers."

    https://www.missingkids.org/theissues/csam#bythenumbers
    Google, Facebook, Snapchat and Microsoft aren’t running spyware  on your phone. This is the difference that detractors of this move bring up every time, and supporters of this move are desperate to ignore. 

    Oh, and Apple already scans their servers for CSAM images, so why move it the phone? 

    And this is what this is all about, in my opinion: the spyware. Apple needs you to accept the argument that with spyware running on your phone, your privacy is safe. Wrapping it in the noble cause of child protection was a good move; they hoped that if anyone criticised them then their supporters would use cries of “think of the children!” to silence them. 

    So why are they doing it?

    So when they introduce a client-side logger to record the apps you run and the sites you visit, they can tell you your privacy is safe even though this representation of your activity is sold on to advertisers. And you will, of course, support them and agree: “No, look; it’s not an invasion of privacy! They’re only sending this bit of data. The photo of you is blurred and they’ve used AI to scrub out your face!” You will agree because you were fooled the first time round, but rather than admit it, you’ll carry on desperately ignoring the obvious fact that this is spyware Apple is running on your phone. You’ll ignore the fact that apple is trying to redefine what privacy is so they can sell yours. 

    Over the years, we’ve been throwing around the phrase, “With Google, you’re the product.”  Google monetises your data. 

    With Apple, it’s different: access to you is the product. They’ve spent years and billions of dollars cultivating a user base of affluent people who actually buy stuff … and if you want access to that user base, Apple thinks you should pay them. 

    mike54muthuk_vanalingammacpluspluscat52aderutterelijahgbaconstangharrywinterdarkvaderbyronl

  • Apple shouldn't use privacy & security to stave off competition, EU antitrust head warns

    Rayz2016Rayz2016
    In an interview with Reuters, Vestager agreed with Cook that privacy and security are important factors for consumers, but warned the Cupertino tech giant against using concerns about them to fend off competition.
    I guess the health and safety of drugs shouldn't be a motivating factor of drug companies either. 

    I think what she’s saying is that you must make your OS more open to scams and malware to level the playing field. 

    The last time the EU got involved in stuff it knows nothing about, we ended up with a page full of questions and checkboxes in front of every website. 
    JWSCapplguyequality72521killroyviclauyycmwhitemagman1979JanNLfotoformatdysamoria

  • Open letter asks Apple not to implement Child Safety measures

    Rayz2016Rayz2016
    DAalseth said:
    No matter how well intentioned, this effort will be used to damage Apple's reputation, severely. It should be abandoned immediately. 
    Remember how Apple was excoriated by some last year for having a "monopoly" on covid reporting Apps. and that was a free thing they did with Google and kept no data. Apple just stuck a big red Kick Me sign on their back. 
    Apple will insist there is no back door into the system, but what they don’t realise is that this the back door. This is the back door that the governments have been asking for. All they need to do is add hashes from other databases (searching for pictures of dissidents, words from subversive poetry), tweak the threshold (you have to have four hits instead of eight) and you have an authoritarian government’s wet dream. It is the ultimate surveillance tool. 

    More of a back passage than a back door, centrally controlled by Apple and law enforcement, allowing every phone to spy on its user. 

    It’s odd but I’m typing this message on my iPad, and I have this notion that I no longer trust it, nor my iPhone, nor my Macs. I’m wary of them of them now. Even if Apple did reverse course (which they won’t), I don’t think that trust is coming back. 

    macpluspluslongpathdarkvaderbaconstangdigitolcaladanianhcrefugeeargonautnadrielgeorgie01

  • Apple details user privacy, security features built into its CSAM scanning system

    Rayz2016Rayz2016
    As usual, Rene Ritchie nails the problem and comes up with a solution:

    https://youtu.be/4poeneCscxI

    Scan the photos on an intermediate server before they’re sent to iCloud. That would remove the on-device scanner that everyone is concerned about. 

    Why they won’t do this:

    That would require more servers. It’s much cheaper for Apple to use the resources on your device to do the scanning for them. 

    If they want to add other goodies, such as activity tracking, later on, then they can only really do this on-device. 
    mike54xyzzy-xxxOctoMonkeyaderutterelijahgbaconstangharrywinterbyronl

  • Epic Games expert says iOS could be like macOS without security drawbacks

    Rayz2016Rayz2016
    Xed said:
    When the iPhone ecosystem was small, Apple’s level of control wasn’t really on anyone’s radar, but as the iOS ecosystem has ballooned to billions of users and billions of dollars of trade, I can see why governments and courts around the planet are interested in how the ecosystem operates.
    So you're asking why a store wouldn't want to allow a product to lead them to another store where products are potentially more profitable for the seller? Have you ever seen TV at BestBuy advertise about buying the same TV at Walmart to save a couple bucks?
    I think you’re looking at this wrong. You say Best Buy should not allow the tv to advertise about Walmart while the tv is in the store. Fair point. 

    But you’re not talking about what the purchaser of the TV does with it AFTER they purchased it. Would you want Best Buy to have the power to tell Samsung or Sony (device manufacturer) that they’re restricted from allowing users to look at Walmart ads after they took the tv home? That would be ludicrous. 

    But yet Apple has the power to tell Netflix (app manufacturer) what users can do with the App AFTER we purchase/download the app? Once the app is on our phones, that’s akin to taking the tv home in my example above. That’s where your analogy breaks down in my view. Netflix should have the right to tell its users about subscription details, etc. 
    I live in a house. 
    I own the house outright. 
    But there are rules that state what I’m allowed to do to my house.
    I cannot put up a fence around my front lawn (weird one). I cannot build a four storey extension in my back garden, even though I own the land. I cannot build a massive three hundred foot satellite dish in the roof. I cannot do anything that would make the house unsafe and then try and sell it. 

    Why? Because even though I own the house and the land, the rules are their to stop me from doing dumb stuff that affects everything me. 

    And you actually don’t own any piece of software. You only think you do. 

    applguyfotoformatqwerty52williamlondonuraharabadmonkaderutterbaconstangStrangeDaysFileMakerFeller

  • Microsoft Windows 11 revealed with dramatic increase in system requirements

    Rayz2016Rayz2016
    KITA said:
    rob53 said:
    KITA said:

    Microsoft also says that it wants to encourage open commerce on its operating system. It will allow apps downloaded from the Windows Store to have independent commerce systems within the app. This differs from Apple's requirements to tie in-app purchases from App Store apps to Apple's commerce system.

    That's quite the contrast to Apple. Microsoft will collect 0% if a developer brings their own commerce system.
    I'll believe it when I see it. Microsoft has always locked apps into their OS. I don't see it changing anytime soon. What they say doesn't always mean what ends up happening. Microsoft server and its client licenses are absolutely not free so they can say they have a free open commerce system but they will charge you somewhere along the road.
    This is what they've stated so far:
    Starting today, Windows developers can publish any kind of app, regardless of app framework and packaging technology – such as Win32, .NET, UWP, Xamarin, Electron, React Native, Java and even Progressive Web Apps. Developers can sign-up here to publish desktop apps, or build and package PWAs using our latest open-source tool PWABuilder 3.

    Many developers love the Microsoft Commerce platform because of its simplicity, global distribution, platform integration and its competitive revenue share terms at 85/15 for apps and 88/12 for games.

    Starting July 28, app developers will also have an option to bring their own or a third party commerce platform in their apps, and if they do so they don’t need to pay Microsoft any fee. They can keep 100% of their revenue.

    https://blogs.windows.com/windowsexperience/2021/06/24/building-a-new-open-microsoft-store-on-windows-11/

    So Microsoft release a new desktop/laptop operating system with an App Store, but with the option of setting up your own App Store without paying a dime to Microsoft. 

    So how’s that different to MacOS?

    https://setapp.com/

    Comparing Windows 11 with iOS is a false equivalence. Microsoft doesn’t have a mobile OS because it crashed and burned. 

    hydrogenqwerty52dewmeBeatstmayKTRmagman1979macxpressfastasleepwilliamlondon

  • Users lobby 1Password to abandon new Electron version

    Rayz2016Rayz2016
    The biggest complaint, however, is that they're dropping the standalone version completely: no more local vaults. Everything has to be stored on 1password.com.


    MplsPpscooter63tudelostkiwidoozydozen